preliminary geotechnical assessment: proposed childcare

Little Elves Childcare Pty Ltd

C/- Creative Drafting Services

P1806957JR03V01

March 2019

Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment:

Proposed Childcare Centre –

66 Claremont Drive, Bargo, NSW

martens

Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment:,

66 Claremont Drive, Bargo, NSW.

P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

Copyright Statement

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd (Publisher) is the owner of the copyright subsisting in this publication. Other than as

permitted by the Copyright Act and as outlined in the Terms of Engagement, no part of this report may be reprinted

or reproduced or used in any form, copied or transmitted, by any electronic, mechanical, or by other means, now

known or hereafter invented (including microcopying, photocopying, recording, recording tape or through electronic

information storage and retrieval systems or otherwise), without the prior written permission of Martens & Associates Pty

Ltd. Legal action will be taken against any breach of its copyright. This report is available only as book form unless

specifically distributed by Martens & Associates in electronic form. No part of it is authorised to be copied, sold,

distributed or offered in any other form.

The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. Unauthorised use of this document

in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Martens & Associates Pty Ltd assumes no responsibility where the document is

used for purposes other than those for which it was commissioned.

Limitations Statement

The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Martens & Associates Pty Ltd is to complete

a preliminary geotechnical investigation in accordance with the scope of services set out by Little Elves Childcare Pty

Ltd C/- Creative Drafting Services (hereafter known as the Client). That scope of works and services were defined by

the requests of the Client, by the time and budgetary constraints imposed by the Client, and by the availability of

access to the site.

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd derived the data in this report primarily from a number of sources including site inspections,

correspondence regarding the proposal, examination of records in the public domain, interviews with individuals with

information about the site or the project, and field explorations conducted on the dates indicated. The passage of

time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further examination / exploration of

the site and subsequent data analyses, together with a re-evaluation of the findings, observations and conclusions

expressed in this report.

In preparing this report, Martens & Associates Pty Ltd may have relied upon and presumed accurate certain

information (or absence thereof) relative to the site. Except as otherwise stated in the report, Martens & Associates Pty

Ltd has not attempted to verify the accuracy of completeness of any such information (including for example survey

data supplied by others).

The findings, observations and conclusions expressed by Martens & Associates Pty Ltd in this report are not, and should

not be considered an opinion concerning the completeness and accuracy of information supplied by others. No

warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied, is made with respect to the data reported or to the findings,

observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Further, such data, findings and conclusions are based solely

upon site conditions, information and drawings supplied by the Client etc. in existence at the time of the investigation.

This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the Client, and is subject to and issued in

connection with the provisions of the agreement between Martens & Associates Pty Ltd and the Client. Martens &

Associates Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this

report by any third party.

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

March 2019

Copyright Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

All Rights Reserved

Head Office

Suite 201, 20 George Street

Hornsby, NSW 2077, Australia

ACN 070 240 890 ABN 85 070 240 890

Phone: +61-2-9476-9999

Fax: +61-2-9476-8767

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.martens.com.au

Document and Distribution Status

Author(s) Reviewer(s) Project Manager Signature

Heath Dee Hamed Naghibi Gray Taylor

Re

vis

ion

No

.

Description Status Release

Date

Document Location

File

Co

py

Cre

ative

Dra

ftin

g S

erv

ice

s

1 Preliminary Geotechnical

Assessment Draft 19.02.2019 1E, 1H, 1P 1P

1 Preliminary Geotechnical

Assessment Final 14.03.2019 1E, 1H, 1P 1P

Distribution Types: F = Fax, H = Hard copy, P = PDF document, E = Other electronic format. Digits indicate number of document copies.

All enquiries regarding this project are to be directed to the Project Manager.

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

Contents 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTIGATION SCOPE .................................... 5

2 GENERAL SITE DETAILS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................... 6

3 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 7

3.1 Soil Reactivity Testing 7

3.2 Preliminary Soil and Rock Properties 7

3.3 Risk of Slope Instability 8

3.4 Geotechnical Recommendations 8

4 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL WORKS .......................................................................... 10

4.1 Works Prior to Construction Certificate 10

4.2 Construction Monitoring and Inspections 10

5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 11

6 ATTACHMENT A – SITE LAYOUT AND GEOTECHNICAL TESTING PLAN ............... 12

7 ATTACHMENT B – TEST BOREHOLE LOGS ............................................................. 14

8 ATTACHMENT C – DCP ‘N’ COUNTS ..................................................................... 20

9 ATTACHMENT D – LABORATORY TEST CERTIFICATE ............................................. 22

10 ATTACHMENT E – GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS................. 24

11 ATTACHMENT F – NOTES ABOUT THIS REPORT ..................................................... 27

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

1 Proposed Development and Investigation Scope

The proposed development details and investigation scope are

summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of proposed development and investigation scope.

Item Details

Property Address 66 Claremont Drive, Bargo, NSW (‘the site’)

Legal Identifier Lot 17 in DP785866

Site Area 4001 m2 (CDS, 2018)

LGA Wollondilly Shire Council (WSC)

Assessment

Purpose

Preliminary geotechnical assessment to support a Development Application

(DA) and assist structural design of the proposed development.

Proposed

Development

The proposal development plans (CDS, 2018) indicate that the development will

include demolition of existing structures and construction of a new at grade

single storey childcare centre and associated car parking and external

playground. No bulk excavations and / or filling is expected to be required for

construction works.

Investigation

Scope of Work

o A general site walkover survey.

o Drilling of five boreholes up to 4.4 metres below ground level (mBGL) (refer

Attachment B for borehole logs, and associated explanatory notes in

Attachment F).

o Collection of soil and weathered rock samples for laboratory testing and

future reference.

o Five Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests up to 1.8 mBGL (refer DCP 'N'

counts in Attachment C).

Investigation locations are shown in Figure 1, Attachment A.

Laboratory

Testing

Soil Reactivity testing was carried out on two soil samples by Resource

Laboratories, a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited

laboratory.

A laboratory test certificate is provided as Attachment D.

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

2 General Site Details and Subsurface Conditions

General site details and investigation findings are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of general site conditions based on desktop review, site walkover and

site investigation.

Item Comment

Topography Within slightly undulating terrain

Typical Slopes,

Aspect,

Elevation

The site generally has a westerly aspect with an overall grade of < 5%.

Site elevation ranges between approximately 341.6 mAHD (eastern boundary)

and 340.0 mAHD (south western corner).

Existing

Development

A single storey brick dwelling with a tile roof, concrete driveway, detached tin

clad double garage and two septic tanks.

Vegetation Scattered mature trees, grass and landscaped garden beds

Expected

Geology

The Wollongong – Port Hacking 1:100,000 Geological Sheet 9029-9129 (Stroud W.

J., Sherwin L., Roy H. N. and Baker C. J. 1985) maps the site near the transition

zone between Ashfield Shale, consisting of black to dark-grey shale and

laminate, and Hawkesbury Sandstone, consisting of medium to coarse-grained

quartz sandstone, very minor shale and laminate lenses. In some areas of

Sydney, the Ashfield Shale and Hawkesbury Sandstone are separated by a thin

(typically <10m thickness) geological formation known as the Mittagong

Formation. This typically comprises layers of fine to medium grained quartz

sandstone and shale.

Drainage Via overland flow towards the west

Sub-surface Soil

/ Rock Units

Unit A: Topsoil comprising silty clay / clayey silt up to 0.3 mBGL.

Unit B: Residual generally stiff, grading to hard silty clay / clay encountered up

to approximately 2.3 mBGL (BH101).

Unit C: Weathered and inferred generally low strength shale below v-bit refusal

depths of between approximately 1.4 mBGL and 2.3 mBGL. Rock below

TC-bit refusal depths of 2.8 mBGL (BH101 and BH103) and 4.4 mBGL

(BH104) is assumed to be medium strength with possible lower and / or

higher strength bands, which should be confirmed / revised by further

assessment, as necessary.

Fill was not encountered during drilling of boreholes. However, it may be present

in limited portions of the site, including areas within and / or nearby existing site

developments, likely placed for previous development purposes.

Groundwater Groundwater inflow was not encountered during drilling of the boreholes up to

4.4 mBGL. Ephemeral perched groundwater may be encountered within the soil

profile at times of, and following, heavy or extended periods of rainfall.

Should further information on permanent site groundwater conditions be

required, additional assessment would need to be carried out (i.e. installation of

groundwater monitoring wells).

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

3 Geotechnical Assessment

3.1 Soil Reactivity Testing

A summary of laboratory soil reactivity test results are presented in

Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of laboratory Soil Reactivity test results.

BH ID / Depth Material Atterberg Limits (%) Plasticity

Classification

Potential Volume

Change 2 LL1 PL1 PI1 LS1

BH101/0.8-1.0 Silty

CLAY 68 22 46 10 High Medium

BH101/1.9-2.0 Silty

CLAY 47 17 30 8

Medium to

High Medium

Notes:

1. LL = Liquid limit, PL= Plastic limit, PI=Plasticity index, LS = Linear shrinkage

2. Based on Hazelton and Murphy, 2016.

Laboratory test results indicate that the tested soil samples are generally

of medium to high plasticity with a non-critical degree of reactivity,

which may result in moderate ground movement due to soil moisture

changes.

3.2 Preliminary Soil and Rock Properties

Preliminary soil and rock properties inferred from observations during

borehole drilling, such as auger penetration resistance, DCP test results

as well as engineering assumptions are summarised in Table 4.

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

Table 4: Preliminary estimated soil and rock properties.

Layer 1 Yin-situ

2

(kN/m3)

UCS 3

(MPa)

Cu 4

(kPa) Ø’ 5

(deg)

E’ 6

(MPa)

TOPSOIL: Silty CLAY / Clayey SILT (dry) 16 NA 7 NA 7 NA 7 NA 7

RESIDUAL SOIL: Silty CLAY (firm to stiff,

dry) 17 NA 7 40 NA 7 8

RESIDUAL SOIL: Silty CLAY/ CLAY (very

stiff, dry) 17 0.2 100 NA 7 25

RESIDUAL SOIL: Silty CLAY/ CLAY (hard,

dry) 18 0.4 200 NA 7 40

WEATHERED ROCK: SHALE (low

strength) 22 1.0 – 3 NA 7 28 100

WEATHERED ROCK: SHALE (medium

strength) 23 3 – 10 NA 7 32 350

Notes:

1. Refer to borehole logs in Attachment B for material description details.

2. Inferred average material in-situ unit weight, based on visual assessment (±10 %).

3. Average unconfined compressive strength of intact material (range provided for rock).

4. Undrained shear strength (± 5 kPa) estimate assuming normally consolidated clay in a dry

condition.

5. Average effective internal friction angle (±2 ˚) estimate assuming drained conditions; may be

dependent on rock defect conditions.

6. Effective elastic modulus (±10 %) estimate.

7. Not applicable.

3.3 Risk of Slope Instability

No evidence of former or current large scale slope movement was

observed at the site. We consider the risk to property and loss of life by

potential slope instability, such as landslide or soil creep, to be very low

subject to the recommendations in this report and adoption of relevant

engineering standards and guidelines. A detailed slope risk assessment

in accordance with Australian Geomechanics Society’s Landslide Risk

Management Guidelines (2007) was not undertaken.

3.4 Geotechnical Recommendations

The following recommendations are provided for the proposed

development. Further general geotechnical recommendations are

provided in Attachment E.

1. Footings and Foundations: Shallow footings, such as pad and strip

footings, or slab-on-ground, founding on at least stiff residual soil

could be adopted as support for new structures. Individual pad

footings and all footings within the building footprint should not

span the interface between different foundation materials.

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

Alternatively, inclusion of movement joints may mitigate impacts

of differential settlements.

Shallow footings may be designed adopting allowable end

bearing capacities of 100 kPa for stiff residual soils, 250 kPa for very

stiff and hard residual soils and 400 kPa for weathered rock,

respectively.

Deepened footings, such as piles, founding in rock may be

considered to accommodate higher end bearing pressures.

These may be designed adopting safe end bearing pressure and

shaft friction of 1000 kPa and 150 kPa, respectively. For uplift

resistance, we recommend reducing allowable shaft friction by

50% and checking against ‘piston’ and ‘cone’ pull-out

mechanisms in accordance with AS2159 (2009).

Recommended end bearing capacity values are subject to at

least 0.3 m and 0.5 m embedment into the design unit for shallow

footings and piles, respectively, as well as inspection and

approval by a geotechnical engineer.

Further testing is required for higher bearing capacity.

2. Earth Pressure Coefficients: Preliminary shoring or retaining wall

design, if required, may adopt preliminary active, at rest and

passive earth pressure coefficients of 0.4, 0.55 and 2.5

respectively.

3. Ground Vibrations: Limited excavations in soils and / or weathered

rock are expected not to require ground vibration management.

4. Drainage requirements: Appropriate surface and sub-surface

drainage should be provided to divert overland flows and

potential perched groundwater away from foundations, and limit

ponding of water near footings. Overland flow should be

discharged into council approved stormwater systems downslope

of the site.

5. Site Classification: The site is classified as a “H1” site in accordance

with AS 2870 (2011). This classification is subject to

recommendations presented in this report and design of footings

in accordance with the relevant Australian standards and

guidelines.

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

4 Proposed Additional Works

4.1 Works Prior to Construction Certificate

We recommend the following additional geotechnical works are carried

out to develop the final design and prior to construction of the proposed

development:

1. If higher end bearing pressures are required or to gain better

understanding of rock conditions, carry out rock coring and point

load testing of collected rock samples to assess rock strength.

2. Review of the final design by a senior geotechnical engineer to

confirm adequate consideration of the geotechnical risks and

adoption of the recommendations provided in this report.

4.2 Construction Monitoring and Inspections

We recommend the following is inspected and monitored during

construction of the project (Table 5).

Table 5: Recommended inspection / monitoring requirements during site works.

Scope of Works Frequency/Duration Who to Complete

Inspect exposed material at foundation /

subgrade level to verify suitability as foundation

/ subgrade.

Prior to reinforcement

set-up and concrete

placement, or fill

placement

MA 1

Monitor sedimentation downslope of excavated

areas.

During and after

rainfall events Builder

Monitor sediment and erosion control structures

to assess adequacy and for removal of built up

spoil.

After rainfall events Builder

Notes:

1 MA = Martens and Associates engineer

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

5 References

Creative Drafting Services (2018) Architectural Drawings, Job No. 181460

Drawing Nos. A0.00 and A1.00-A1.08 and F1.00, Issue A, dated

November 2018 (CDS, 2018).

Hazelton, P. and Murphy, B. (2016) Interpreting Soil Test Results, CSIRO

Publishing, Third Edition (Hazelton and Murphy, 2016).

Shepherd Surveys (2018) Plan Showing Detail & Contours over Lot 17 in

DP785866, 66 Claremont Drive, Bargo, NSW, 2574, Revision 0, dated

November 2018 (Shepherd Surveys, 2018).

Standards Australia Limited (1997) AS 1289.6.3.2:1997, Determination of

the penetration resistance of a soil – 9kg dynamic cone

penetrometer test, SAI Global Limited.

Standards Australia Limited (2017) AS 1726:2017, Geotechnical site

investigations, SAI Global Limited.

Standards Australia Limited (2011) AS 2870:2011, Residential slabs and

footings, SAI Global Limited.

Stroud W. J., Sherwin L., Roy H. N. and Baker C. J. (1985) Wollongong -

Port Hacking 1:100 000 Geological Sheet 9029-9129, 1st edition,

Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney.

martens



P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019

6 Attachment A – Site layout and Geotechnical Testing

Plan

Indicative borehole and DCP test location

Key:

Indicative site boundary

BH101 DCP101

Drawn:

Approved:

Date:

HD

HN

15.02.2019

NA

Environment | Water | Wastewater | Geotechnical | Civil | Management Martens & Associates Pty Ltd ABN 85 070 240 890

FIGURE 1

Drawing No:

EXISTING SITE SURVYE AND GEOTECHNICAL TESTING PLAN


(Source: Shepherd Surveys, 2018)

marte

ns

Project Number: P1806957JR03V01

Scale:

BH102 DCP102

BH103 DCP103 BH104

DCP104

BH105 DCP105

martens



Geotechnical Investigation:

33 Winton Street, Appin, NSW

P1806957JR03V01 – March 2019 P1806471JR02V01 – March 2018

Page 14

7 Attachment B – Test Borehole Logs

0.20

0.80

2.30

2.80

0.20

0.80

2.30

L

M

H

AD

/VA

D/T

M(>PL)

M(<PL)

6957/BH101/0.0-0.2/S/1D 0.00 m

6957/BH101/0.3-0.5/S/1D 0.30 m

6957/BH101/0.8-1.0/S/1D 0.80 m

6957/BH101/1.2-1.4/S/1D 1.20 m

6957/BH101/1.9-2.0/S/1D 1.90 m

6957/BH101/2.4-2.6/R/1D 2.40 m

6957/BH101/2.7-2.9/R/1D 2.70 m

TOPSOIL: Silty CLAY LOAM; moderately structured; dark brown;trace roots.

LIGHT CLAY; moderately structured; dark brown.

MEDIUM CLAY; moderately structured; red and grey.

SHALE; dark grey; low strength; distinctly weathered.

Hole Terminated at 2.80 m

SiCL

LC

MC

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

WEATHERED ROCK2.30: V-bit refusal.

2.80: TC-bit refusal on inferred low strengthshale.

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

Field Material Description

RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

30/01/2019

CHECKED

VEGETATION Grass

4WD truck-mounted hydraulic drill rig

NORTHING ASPECT West SLOPE

Ashfield Shale

DI

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 2.80 m depth <5%

AHDEQUIPMENT

EXCAVATION DIMENSIONS

RL SURFACE

Engineering Log -BOREHOLE

30/01/2019 REF BH101

m

EXCAVATION LOG TO BE READ IN CONJUCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING REPORT NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS

PROJECT NO. P1806957

PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE



Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

MARTENS & ASSOCIATES PTY LTDSuite 201, 20 George St. Hornsby, NSW 2077 Australia

Phone: (02) 9476 9999 Fax: (02) 9476 [email protected] WEB: http://www.martens.com.au

MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P18

0695

7 B

H10

1-B

H10

5V01

-AG

G.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

27/

02/2

019

16:2

7 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13

STRUCTURE ANDADDITIONAL

OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.20

0.80

1.50

0.20

0.80

L

M

H

AD

/V

M(<PL)

M(<<PL)

6957/BH102/0.0-0.2/S/1D 0.00 m

6957/BH102/0.3-0.4/S/1D 0.30 m

6957/BH102/0.8-1.0/S/1D 0.80 m

6957/BH102/1.3-1.5/S/1D 1.30 m

TOPSOIL: Silty CLAY LOAM; moderately structured; brown; traceroots.

Silty LIGHT CLAY; moderately structured; dark brown.



SiCL

LC

MC

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

1.50: V-bit refusal on inferred very low tolow strength shale.

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

30/01/2019

CHECKED

VEGETATION Grass



Ashfield Shale

DI

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 1.50 m depth <5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


30/01/2019 REF BH102

m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P18

0695

7 B

H10

1-B

H10

5V01

-AG

G.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

27/

02/2

019

16:2

7 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.20

1.10

1.50

2.80

0.20

1.10

1.50

2.40

M

H

AD

/VA

D/T

M(<PL)

M(<<PL)

6957/BH103/0.0-0.2/S/1D 0.00 m

6957/BH103/0.3-0.4/S/1D 0.30 m

6957/BH103/0.8-1.0/S/1D 0.80 m

6957/BH103/1.2-1.4/S/1D 1.20 m

6957/BH103/1.8-2.0/R/1D 1.80 m

6957/BH103/2.4-2.6/R/1D 2.40 m

6957/BH103/2.7-2.8/R/1D 2.70 m

TOPSOIL: Silty CLAY LOAM; moderately structured; brown; traceroots.

Silty LIGHT CLAY; moderately structured; red, orange and brown.


SHALE; red and grey; extremely low to very low strength; highlyweathered.

Grey and dark grey; inferred very low to low strength; distinctlyweathered.


SiCL

LC

MC

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

WEATHERED ROCK1.50: V-bit refusal on possible extremelyweathered rock.

2.80: TC-bit refusal on inferred low strengthshale.

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

30/01/2019

CHECKED

VEGETATION Grass



Ashfield Shale

DI

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 2.80 m depth <5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


30/01/2019 REF BH103

m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P18

0695

7 B

H10

1-B

H10

5V01

-AG

G.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

27/

02/2

019

16:2

7 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.20

1.40

4.40

0.20

1.40

2.60

M

H

AD

/VA

D/T

M(<<PL)

6957/BH104/0.0-0.2/S/1D 0.00 m

6957/BH104/0.3-0.5/S/1D 0.30 m

6957/BH104/1.2-1.4/S/1D 1.20 m

6957/BH104/1.8-2.0/R/1D 1.80 m

6957/BH104/2.7-3.0/R/1D 2.70 m

6957/BH104/4.2-4.4/R/1D 4.20 m

TOPSOIL: Silty LOAM; moderately structured; brown; traceironstone gravels.

Silty MEDIUM CLAY; moderately structured; red and grey.

SHALE; red and grey.

Grey and dark grey.

Hole Terminated at 4.40 m(Target depth reached)

SiCL

MC

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

30/01/2019

CHECKED

VEGETATION Grass



Ashfield Shale

DI

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 4.40 m depth <5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


30/01/2019 REF BH104

m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P18

0695

7 B

H10

1-B

H10

5V01

-AG

G.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

27/

02/2

019

16:2

7 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.30

0.80

1.50

3.00

0.30

0.80

1.50

1.90

L

M

H

M

H

AD

/VA

D/T

M(<<PL)

6957/BH105/0.0-0.2/S/1D 0.00 m

6957/BH105/0.3-0.5/S/1D 0.30 m

6957/BH105/0.8-1.0/S/1D 0.80 m

6957/BH105/1.2-1.4/S/1D 1.20 m

6957/BH105/1.6-1.8/R/1D 1.60 m

6957/BH105/2.8-3.0/R/1D 2.80 m

TOPSOIL: LOAM; moderately structured; dark grey and darkbrown.

Silty LIGHT CLAY; moderately structured; red and grey; traceironstone gravels.

Silty MEDIUM CLAY; moderately structured; red and grey.

SHALE; red and grey; inferred very low strength; highlyweathered.

Grey; distinctly weathered.

Hole Terminated at 3.00 m(Target depth reached)

L

LC

MC

Not

Enc

ount

ered

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL


PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Sampling

RE

CO

VE

RE

D


RLDEPTH

ME

TH

OD

Drilling

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G


MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

DE

NS

ITY

U

SC

S /

AS

CS

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

COMMENCED

LOGGED

GEOLOGY

30/01/2019

CHECKED

VEGETATION Grass



Ashfield Shale

DI

COMPLETED

Sheet 1 OF 1

EASTING DATUM

100 mm x 3.00 m depth <5%

AHDEQUIPMENT


RL SURFACE


30/01/2019 REF BH105

m



PROJECT

CLIENT

SITE






MA

RT

EN

S 2

.00

LIB

.GLB

Log

MA

RT

EN

S B

OR

EH

OLE

P18

0695

7 B

H10

1-B

H10

5V01

-AG

G.G

PJ

<<

Dra

win

gFile

>>

27/

02/2

019

16:2

8 8

.30.

004

Dat

gel L

ab a

nd In

Situ

Too

l - D

GD

| Li

b: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13 P

rj: M

arte

ns 2

.00

2016

-11-

13


OBSERVATIONS

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

martens






Page 20

8 Attachment C – DCP ‘N’ Counts

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Log Summary

Depth Interval

(m)DCP101 DCP102 DCP103 DCP104 DCP105

0.15 1 5 6 21 3

0.30 3 8 7 16 6

0.45 3 13 7 11 9

0.60 5 10 12 14 13

0.75 8 14 17 18 17

0.90 11 15 19 18 19

1.05 9 20 24 30 26

1.20 13 40 + 25 30

1.35 16 28

1.50 21 30+

1.65 24

1.80 20 / 100 mm

1.95

2.10

2.25

2.40

2.55

2.70

2.85

3.00

3.15

3.30

P1806957JS02V01

Client Little Elves Childcare Pty Ltd 30.01.2019

Logged by

DCP Group Reference

Log Date

DI

Checked by

Site 66 Claremont Drive, Bargo, NSW

HN

Comments DCP commenced at 0.05 mBGL

TEST DATA

Bounce @ 1.8

mBGL

Terminated @

1.25 mBGL due to

high 'N' counts Terminated @

1.55 mBGL due to

high 'N' counts

Bounce @ 1.1

mBGL Bounce @ 1.25

mBGL

Suite 201, 20 George Street, Hornsby, NSW 2077 Ph: (02) 9476 9999 Fax: (02) 9476 8767, [email protected], www.martens.com.a u

martens consulting engineers since 1989

martens






Page 22

9 Attachment D – Laboratory Test Certificate

ABN: 25 131 532 020

Sydney: 12/1 Boden Road Seven Hills NSW 2147 | PO Box 45 Pendle Hill NSW 2145

Ph: (02) 9674 7711 | Fax: (02) 9674 7755 | Email: [email protected]

Customer: Job number: 19-0006

Project: Report number: 1

Location: Page: 1 of 1

Sampling method: Samples tested as received Test method(s):

.3.4.1

17900 17901

6957/BH101/

0.8-1.0/S/1

6957/BH101/

1.9-2.0/S/1 #N/A #N/A #N/A

30/01/2019 30/01/2019 #N/A #N/A #N/A

silty CLAY, trace

of gravel, mottled

red/grey

silty CLAY, trace

of gravel, pale

grey/red

#N/A #N/A #N/A

68 47

22 17

46 30

10.0 8.0

Cracking -

Air dried Air dried

Dry sieved Dry sieved

Approved Signatory: E. Maldonado Date: 18/02/2019

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 17062

R5.v9 / 1 of 1

Test Report

Soil Index Properties

Results

Liquid limit (%)

Plastic limit (%)

Material description

AS 1289.1.1, 2.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1

Laboratory sample no.

Customer sample no.

Date sampled

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

P1806957


Cracking / Curling / Crumbling

Sample history

Preparation

Plasticity index (%)

Linear shrinkage (%)

http://www.resourcelab.com.au/

martens






Page 24

10 Attachment E – General Geotechnical Recommendations

ma

rte

ns

con

sult

ing

en

gin

ee

rs

These general geotechnical recommendations have been prepared by Martens to helpyou deliver a safe work site, to comply with your obligations, and to deliver your project.Not all are necessarily relevant to this report but are included as general reference. Anyspecific recommendations made in the report will override these recommendations.

Batter Slopes

Excavations in soil and extremely low to very lowstrength rock exceeding 0.75 m depth should bebattered back at grades of no greater than 1Vertical (V) : 2 Horizontal (H) for temporary slopes(unsupported for less than 1 month) and 1 V : 3 H forlonger term unsupported slopes.

Vertical excavation may be carried out in mediumor higher strength rock, where encountered, subjectto inspection and confirmation by a geotechnicalengineer. Long term and short term unsupportedbatters should be protected against erosion androck weathering due to, for example, stormwaterrun-off.

Batter angles may need to be revised dependingon the presence of bedding partings or adverselyoriented joints in the exposed rock, and are subjectto on-site inspection and confirmation by ageotechnical engineer. Unsupported excavationsdeeper than 1.0 m should be assessed by ageotechnical engineer for slope instability risk.

Any excavated rock faces should be inspectedduring construction by a geotechnical engineer todetermine whether any additional support, such asrock bolts or shotcrete, is required.

Earthworks

Earthworks should be carried out following removalof any unsuitable materials and in accordance withAS3798 (2007). A qualified geotechnical engineershould inspect the condition of prepared surfacesto assess suitability as foundation for future fillplacement or load application.

Earthworks inspections and compliance testingshould be carried out in accordance with Sections5 and 8 of AS3798 (2007), with testing to be carriedout by a National Association of Testing Authorities(NATA) accredited testing laboratory.

Excavations

All excavation work should be completed withreference to the Work Health and Safety(Excavation Work) Code of Practice (2015), by SafeWork Australia. Excavations into rock may beundertaken as follows:

1. Extremely low to low strength rock -conventional hydraulic earthmovingequipment.

2. Medium strength or stronger rock - hydraulicearthmoving equipment with rock hammer orripping tyne attachment.

Exposed rock faces and loose boulders should bemonitored to assess risk of block / bouldermovement, particularly as a result of excavationvibrations.

Fill

Subject to any specific recommendations providedin this report, any fill imported to site is to compriseapproved material with maximum particle size oftwo thirds the final layer thickness. Fill should beplaced in horizontal layers of not more than 300 mmloose thickness, however, the layer thickness shouldbe appropriate for the adopted compaction plant.

Foundations

All exposed foundations should be inspected by ageotechnical engineer prior to footing constructionto confirm encountered conditions satisfy designassumptions and that the base of all excavations isfree from loose or softened material and water.Water that has ponded in the base of excavationsand any resultant softened material is to beremoved prior to footing construction.

Footings should be constructed with minimal delayfollowing excavation. If a delay in construction isanticipated, we recommend placing a concreteblinding layer of at least 50 mm thickness in shallowfootings or mass concrete in piers / piles to protectexposed foundations.

A geotechnical engineer should confirm any designbearing capacity values, by further assessmentduring construction, as necessary.

Shoring - Anchors

Where there is a requirement for either soil or rockanchors, or soil nailing, and these structurespenetrate past a property boundary, appropriatepermission from the adjoining land owner must beobtained prior to the installation of these structures.

Shoring - Permanent

Permanent shoring techniques may be used as analternative to temporary shoring. The design ofsuch structures should be in accordance with thefindings of this report and any further testingrecommended by this report. Permanent shoringmay include [but not be limited to] reinforced blockwork walls, contiguous and semi contiguous pilewalls, secant pile walls and soldier pile walls with orwithout reinforced shotcrete infill panels. Thechoice of shoring system will depend on the type ofstructure, project budget and site specificgeotechnical conditions.

Permanent shoring systems are to be engineerdesigned and backfilled with suitable granular

Important Recommendations About Your Site (1 of 2)

ma

rte

ns

con

sult

ing

en

gin

ee

rs

material and free-draining drainage material.Backfill should be placed in maximum 100 mm thicklayers compacted using a hand operatedcompactor. Care should be taken to ensureexcessive compaction stresses are not transferredto retaining walls.

Shoring design should consider any surchargeloading from sloping / raised ground behind shoringstructures, live loads, new structures, constructionequipment, backfill compaction and static waterpressures. All shoring systems shall be provided withadequate foundation designs.

Suitable drainage measures, such as geotextileenclosed 100 mm agricultural pipes embedded infree-draining gravel, should be included to redirectwater that may collect behind the shoring structureto a suitable discharge point.

Shoring - Temporary

In the absence of providing acceptableexcavation batters, excavations should besupported by suitably designed and installedtemporary shoring / retaining structures to limitlateral deflection of excavation faces andassociated ground surface settlements.

Soil Erosion Control

Removal of any soil overburden should beperformed in a manner that reduces the risk ofsedimentation occurring in any formal stormwaterdrainage system, on neighbouring land and inreceiving waters. Where possible, this may beachieved by one or more of the following means:

1. Maintain vegetation where possible2. Disturb minimal areas during excavation3. Revegetate disturbed areas if possible

All spoil on site should be properly controlled byerosion control measures to prevent transportationof sediments off-site. Appropriate soil erosion controlmethods in accordance with Landcom (2004) shallbe required.

Trafficability and Access

Consideration should be given to the impact of theproposed works and site subsurface conditions ontrafficability within the site e.g. wet clay soils willlead to poor trafficability by tyred plant or vehicles.

Where site access is likely to be affected by any siteworks, construction staging should be organisedsuch that any impacts on adequate access areminimised as best as possible.

Vibration Management

Where excavation is to be extended into mediumor higher strength rock, care will be required whenusing a rock hammer to limit potential structuraldistress from excavation-induced vibrations wherenearby structures may be affected by the works.

To limit vibrations, we recommend limiting rockhammer size and set frequency, and setting thehammer parallel to bedding planes and alongdefect planes, where possible, or as advised by ageotechnical engineer. We recommend limitingvibration peak particle velocities (PPV) caused byconstruction equipment or resulting fromexcavation at the site to 5 mm/s (AS 2187.2, 2006,Appendix J).

Waste – Spoil and Water

Soil to be disposed off-site should be classified inaccordance with the relevant State Authorityguidelines and requirements.

Any collected waste stormwater or groundwatershould also be tested prior to discharge to ensurecontaminant levels (where applicable) areappropriate for the nominated discharge location.

MA can complete the necessary classification andtesting if required. Time allowance should be madefor such testing in the construction program.

Water Management - Groundwater

If the proposed works are likely to intersectephemeral or permanent groundwater levels, themanagement of any potential acid soil drainageshould be considered. If groundwater tables arelikely to be lowered, this should be further discussedwith the relevant State Government Agency.

Water Management – Surface Water

All surface runoff should be diverted away fromexcavation areas during construction works andprevented from accumulating in areas surroundingany retaining structures, footings or the base ofexcavations.

Any collected surface water should be dischargedinto a suitable Council approved drainage systemand not adversely impact downslope surface andsubsurface conditions.

All site discharges should be passed through a filtermaterial prior to release. Sump and pump methodswill generally be suitable for collection and removalof accumulated surface water within anyexcavations.

Contingency Plan

In the event that proposed development workscause an adverse impact on geotechnical hazards,overall site stability or adjacent properties, thefollowing actions are to be undertaken:

1. Works shall cease immediately.2. The nature of the impact shall be documented

and the reason(s) for the adverse impactinvestigated.

3. A qualified geotechnical engineer should beconsulted to provide further advice in relationto the issue.

Important Recommendations About Your Site (2 of 2)

martens






Page 27

11 Attachment F – Notes About This Report

ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

These notes have been prepared by Martens to help you interpret and understand the limitations of your report. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports but are included as general reference. Engineering Reports - Limitations The recommendations presented in this report are based on limited investigations and include specific issues to be addressed during various phases of the project. If the recommendations presented in this report are not implemented in full, the general recommendations may become inapplicable and Martens & Associates accept no responsibility whatsoever for the performance of the works undertaken. Occasionally, sub-surface conditions between and below the completed boreholes or other tests may be found to be different (or may be interpreted to be different) from those expected. Variation can also occur with groundwater conditions, especially after climatic changes. If such differences appear to exist, we recommend that you immediately contact Martens & Associates. Relative ground surface levels at borehole locations may not be accurate and should be verified by on-site survey. Engineering Reports – Project Specific Criteria Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel. They are based on information obtained, on current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis, and on the basis of your unique project specific requirements as understood by Martens. Project criteria typically include the general nature of the project; its size and configuration; the location of any structures on the site; other site improvements; the presence of underground utilities; and the additional risk imposed by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the Client. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal (e.g. a three storey building), the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed (e.g. to a twenty storey building). Your report should not be relied upon, if there are changes to the project, without first asking Martens to assess how factors, which changed subsequent to the date of the report, affect the report’s recommendations. Martens will not accept responsibility for problems that may occur due to design changes, if not consulted. Engineering Reports – Recommendations Your report is based on the assumption that site conditions, as may be revealed through selective point sampling, are indicative of actual conditions throughout an area. This assumption often cannot be substantiated until project implementation has commenced. Therefore your site investigation report recommendations should only be regarded as preliminary.

Only Martens, who prepared the report, are fully familiar with the background information needed to assess whether or not the report’s recommendations are valid and whether or not changes should be considered as the project develops. If another party undertakes the implementation of the recommendations of this report, there is a risk that the report will be misinterpreted and Martens cannot be held responsible for such misinterpretation. Engineering Reports – Use for Tendering Purposes Where information obtained from investigations is provided for tendering purposes, Martens recommend that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. Martens would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Engineering Reports – Data The report as a whole presents the findings of a site assessment and should not be copied in part or altered in any way. Logs, figures, drawings etc are customarily included in a Martens report and are developed by scientists, engineers or geologists based on their interpretation of field logs (assembled by field personnel), desktop studies and laboratory evaluation of field samples. These data should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in other documents or separated from the report in any way. Engineering Reports – Other Projects To avoid misuse of the information contained in your report it is recommended that you confer with Martens before passing your report on to another party who may not be familiar with the background and purpose of the report. Your report should not be applied to any project other than that originally specified at the time the report was issued. Subsurface Conditions - General Every care is taken with the report in relation to interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of geotechnical aspects, relevant standards and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, the Company cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: o Unexpected variations in ground conditions -

the potential will depend partly on test point

Important Information About Your Report (1 of 2)

ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

(eg. excavation or borehole) spacing and sampling frequency, which are often limited by project imposed budgetary constraints.

o Changes in guidelines, standards and policy or interpretation of guidelines, standards and policy by statutory authorities.

o The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.

o Actual conditions differing somewhat from those inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter how qualified, can reveal precisely what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between logged materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than assumed based on the facts obtained. Nothing can be done to change the actual site conditions which exist, but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of unexpected conditions.

If these conditions occur, Martens will be pleased to assist with investigation or providing advice to resolve the matter. Subsurface Conditions - Changes Natural processes and the activity of man create subsurface conditions. For example, water levels can vary with time, fill may be placed on a site and pollutants may migrate with time. Reports are based on conditions which existed at the time of the subsurface exploration / assessment. Decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. If an extended period of time has elapsed since the report was prepared, consult Martens to be advised how time may have impacted on the project. Subsurface Conditions - Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those that were expected from the information contained in the report, Martens requests that it immediately be notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved at the time when conditions are exposed, rather than at some later stage well after the event. Report Use by Other Design Professionals To avoid potentially costly misinterpretations when other design professionals develop their plans based on a Martens report, retain Martens to work with other project professionals affected by the report. This may involve Martens explaining the report design implications and then reviewing plans and specifications produced to see how they have incorporated the report findings.

Subsurface Conditions – Geo-environmental Issues Your report generally does not relate to any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous or contaminated materials existing at the site unless specifically required to do so as part of Martens’ proposal for works. Specific sampling guidelines and specialist equipment, techniques and personnel are typically used to perform geo-environmental or site contamination assessments. Contamination can create major health, safety and environmental risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site to be contaminated or create an environmental hazard, you are advised to contact Martens for information relating to such matters. Responsibility Geo-environmental reporting relies on interpretation of factual information based on professional judgment and opinion and has an inherent level of uncertainty attached to it and is typically far less exact than the design disciplines. This has often resulted in claims being lodged against consultants, which are unfounded. To help prevent this problem, a number of clauses have been developed for use in contracts, reports and other documents. Responsibility clauses do not transfer appropriate liabilities from Martens to other parties but are included to identify where Martens’ responsibilities begin and end. Their use is intended to help all parties involved to recognise their individual responsibilities. Read all documents from Martens closely and do not hesitate to ask any questions you may have. Site Inspections Martens will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for aspects of work to which this report relates. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site. Martens is familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to a project, from design to construction.

Important Information About Your Report (2 of 2)

ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Definitions In engineering terms, soil includes every type of uncemented or partially cemented inorganic or organic material found in the ground. In practice, if the material does not exhibit any visible rock properties and can be remoulded or disintegrated by hand in its field condition or in water it is described as a soil. Other materials are described using rock description terms. The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are typically based on Australian Standard 1726 and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) – refer Soil Data Explanation of Terms (2 of 3). In general, descriptions cover the following properties - strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type and inclusions. Particle Size Soil types are described according to the predominating particle size, qualified by the grading of other particles present (e.g. sandy CLAY). Unless otherwise stated, particle size is described in accordance with the following table.

Division Subdivision Size (mm)

BOULDERS >200

COBBLES 63 to 200

GRAVEL

Coarse 20 to 63

Medium 6 to 20

Fine 2.36 to 6

SAND

Coarse 0.6 to 2.36

Medium 0.2 to 0.6

Fine 0.075 to 0.2

SILT 0.002 to 0.075

CLAY < 0.002

Plasticity Properties Plasticity properties of cohesive soils can be assessed in the field by tactile properties or by laboratory procedures.

Moisture Condition Dry Looks and feels dry. Cohesive and cemented soils are

hard, friable or powdery. Uncemented granular soils run freely through hands.

Moist Soil feels cool and damp and is darkened in colour.

Cohesive soils can be moulded. Granular soils tend to cohere.

Wet As for moist but with free water forming on hands when

handled.

Consistency of Cohesive Soils Cohesive soils refer to predominantly clay materials.

Term Cu (kPa)

Approx. SPT “N” Field Guide

Very Soft <12 2

A finger can be pushed well into the soil with little effort. Sample extrudes between fingers when

squeezed in fist.

Soft 12 - 25 2 – 4 A finger can be pushed into the soil to about 25mm depth. Easily

moulded in fingers.

Firm 25 - 50 4 – 8

The soil can be indented about 5mm with the thumb, but not

penetrated. Can be moulded by strong pressure in the figures.

Stiff 50 - 100 8 – 15

The surface of the soil can be indented with the thumb, but not penetrated. Cannot be moulded

by fingers.

Very Stiff 100 - 200 15 – 30

The surface of the soil can be marked, but not indented with thumb pressure. Difficult to cut

with a knife. Thumbnail can readily indent.

Hard > 200 > 30

The surface of the soil can be marked only with the thumbnail.

Brittle. Tends to break into fragments.

Friable - - Crumbles or powders when scraped by thumbnail.

Density of Granular Soils Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relative density, generally from standard penetration test (SPT) or Dutch cone penetrometer test (CPT) results as below:

Relative Density % SPT ‘N’ Value*

(blows/300mm)

CPT Cone Value

(qc MPa)

Very loose < 15 < 5 < 2

Loose 15 - 35 5 - 10 2 - 5

Medium dense 35 - 65 10 - 30 5 - 15

Dense 65 - 85 30 - 50 15 - 25

Very dense > 85 > 50 > 25

* Values may be subject to corrections for overburden pressures and equipment type. Minor Components Minor components in soils may be present and readily detectable, but have little bearing on general geotechnical classification. Terms include:

Term Assessment Proportion of Minor component In:

Trace of

Presence just detectable by feel or

eye. Soil properties little or no different to

general properties of primary component.

Coarse grained soils: < 5 %

Fine grained soils:

< 15 %

With some

Presence easily detectable by feel or

eye. Soil properties little different to general

properties of primary component.

Coarse grained soils: 5 – 12 %

Fine grained soils:

15 – 30 %

Explanation of Terms (1 of 3)

ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Symbols for Soils and Other SOILS OTHER

COBBLES/BOULDERS

SILT (ML OR MH)

FILL

GRAVEL (GP OR GW) ORGANIC SILT (OH) TALUS

SILTY GRAVEL (GM) CLAY (CL, CI OR CH) ASPHALT

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) SILTY CLAY CONCRETE

SAND (SP OR SW) SANDY CLAY

SILTY SAND (SM) PEAT

CLAYEY SAND (SC) TOPSOIL

Unified Soil Classification Scheme (USCS)

FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES (Excluding particles larger than 63 mm and basing fractions on estimated mass) USCS Primary Name

CO

ARS

E G

RAIN

ED S

OIL

S M

ore

tha

n 50

% o

f ma

teria

l les

s tha

n 63

mm

is la

rger

tha

n 0.

075

mm

(A 0

.075

mm

pa

rticl

e is

ab

out t

he sm

alle

st p

arti

cle

visib

le to

the

nake

d e

ye) G

RAV

ELS

Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

fract

ion

is la

rger

than

2.0

mm

.

CLE

AN

G

RAV

ELS

(Litt

le o

r no

fines

)

Wide range in grain size and substantial amounts of all intermediate particle sizes. GW Gravel

Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with more intermediate sizes missing GP Gravel

GRA

VEL

S W

ITH F

INES

(A

ppre

ciab

le

amou

nt o

f fin

es)

Non-plastic fines (for identification procedures see ML below) GM Silty Gravel

Plastic fines (for identification procedures see CL below) GC Clayey Gravel

SAN

DS

Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

fract

ion

is sm

alle

r tha

n 2.

0 m

m

CLE

AN

SA

ND

S (L

ittle

or n

o fin

es)

Wide range in grain sizes and substantial amounts of intermediate sizes missing. SW Sand

Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with some intermediate sizes missing SP Sand

SAN

DS

WITH

FIN

ES

(App

reci

able

am

ount

of

fines

)

Non-plastic fines (for identification procedures see ML below) SM Silty Sand

Plastic fines (for identification procedures see CL below) SC Clayey Sand

FIN

E G

RAIN

ED S

OIL

S M

ore

tha

n 50

% o

f ma

teria

l les

s tha

n 63

mm

is

sma

ller t

han

0.07

5 m

m

IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES ON FRACTIONS < 0.2 MM

DRY STRENGTH (Crushing

Characteristics) DILATANCY TOUGHNESS

DESCRIPTION

USCS Primary Name

None to Low Quick to Slow None Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or

clayey fine sands with slight plasticity ML Silt

Medium to High None Medium Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity 1,

gravely clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays CL 2 Clay

Low to Medium

Slow to Very Slow Low Organic slits and organic silty clays of low plasticity OL Organic Silt

Low to Medium

Slow to Very Slow

Low to Medium

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts MH Silt

High None High Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays CH Clay

Medium to High None Low to

Medium Organic clays of medium to high plasticity OH Organic Silt

HIGHLY ORGANIC

SOILS Readily identified by colour, odour, spongy feel and frequently by fibrous texture Pt Peat

Notes: 1. Low Plasticity – Liquid Limit WL < 35 % Medium Plasticity – Liquid limit WL 35 to 60 % High Plasticity - Liquid limit WL > 60 %. 2. CI may be adopted for clay of medium plasticity to distinguish from clay of low plasticity.


ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Soil Agricultural Classification Scheme In some situations, such as where soils are to be used for effluent disposal purposes, soils are often more appropriately classified in terms of traditional agricultural classification schemes. Where a Martens report provides agricultural classifications, these are undertaken in accordance with descriptions by Northcote, K.H. (1979) The factual key for the recognition of Australian Soils, Rellim Technical Publications, NSW, p 26 - 28.

Symbol Field Texture Grade Behaviour of moist bolus Ribbon length Clay content (%)

S Sand Coherence nil to very slight; cannot be moulded; single grains adhere to fingers 0 mm < 5

LS Loamy sand Slight coherence; discolours fingers with dark organic stain 6.35 mm 5

CLS Clayey sand Slight coherence; sticky when wet; many sand grains stick to fingers; discolours fingers with clay stain 6.35mm - 1.3cm 5 - 10

SL Sandy loam Bolus just coherent but very sandy to touch; dominant sand grains are of medium size and are readily visible 1.3 - 2.5 10 - 15

FSL Fine sandy loam Bolus coherent; fine sand can be felt and heard 1.3 - 2.5 10 - 20

SCL- Light sandy clay loam Bolus strongly coherent but sandy to touch, sand grains dominantly medium size and easily visible 2.0 15 - 20

L Loam Bolus coherent and rather spongy; smooth feel when

manipulated but no obvious sandiness or silkiness; may be somewhat greasy to the touch if much organic matter present

2.5 25

Lfsy Loam, fine sandy Bolus coherent and slightly spongy; fine sand can be felt and heard when manipulated 2.5 25

SiL Silt loam Coherent bolus, very smooth to silky when manipulated 2.5 25 + > 25 silt

SCL Sandy clay loam Strongly coherent bolus sandy to touch; medium size sand grains visible in a finer matrix 2.5 - 3.8 20 - 30

CL Clay loam Coherent plastic bolus; smooth to manipulate 3.8 - 5.0 30 - 35

SiCL Silty clay loam Coherent smooth bolus; plastic and silky to touch 3.8 - 5.0 30- 35 + > 25 silt

FSCL Fine sandy clay loam Coherent bolus; fine sand can be felt and heard 3.8 - 5.0 30 - 35

SC Sandy clay Plastic bolus; fine to medium sized sands can be seen, felt or heard in a clayey matrix 5.0 - 7.5 35 - 40

SiC Silty clay Plastic bolus; smooth and silky 5.0 - 7.5 35 - 40 + > 25 silt

LC Light clay Plastic bolus; smooth to touch; slight resistance to shearing 5.0 - 7.5 35 - 40

LMC Light medium clay Plastic bolus; smooth to touch, slightly greater resistance to shearing than LC 7.5 40 - 45

MC Medium clay Smooth plastic bolus, handles like plasticine and can be moulded into rods without fracture, some resistance to shearing > 7.5 45 - 55

HC Heavy clay Smooth plastic bolus; handles like stiff plasticine; can be moulded into rods without fracture; firm resistance to shearing > 7.5 > 50


ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Symbols for Rock SEDIMENTARY ROCK METAMORPHIC ROCK

BRECCIA

COAL

SLATE, PHYLLITE, SCHIST

CONGLOMERATE LIMESTONE GNEISS

CONGLOMERATIC SANDSTONE LITHIC TUFF METASANDSTONE

SANDSTONE/QUARTZITE METASILTSTONE

SILTSTONE IGNEOUS ROCK METAMUDSTONE

MUDSTONE/CLAYSTONE

GRANITE

SHALE DOLERITE/BASALT

Definitions Descriptive terms used for Rock by Martens are based on AS1726 and encompass rock substance, defects and mass.

Rock Substance In geotechnical engineering terms, rock substance is any naturally occurring aggregate of minerals and organic matter which cannot be disintegrated or remoulded by hand in air or water. Other material is described using soil descriptive terms. Rock substance is effectively homogeneous and may be isotropic or anisotropic.

Rock Defect Discontinuity or break in the continuity of a substance or substances.

Rock Mass Any body of material which is not effectively homogeneous. It can consist of two or more substances without defects, or one or more substances with one or more defects.

Degree of Weathering Rock weathering is defined as the degree of decline in rock structure and grain property and can be determined in the field.

Term Symbol Definition

Residual soil1 Rs Soil derived from the weathering of rock. The mass structure and substance fabric are no longer evident. There is a large change in volume but the soil has not been significantly transported.

Extremely weathered1 EW

Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that the rock exhibits soil properties - i.e. it can be remoulded and can be classified according to the Unified Classification System, but the texture of the original rock is still evident.

Highly weathered2 HW

Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that limonite staining or bleaching affects the whole of the rock substance and other signs of chemical or physical decomposition are evident. Porosity and strength may be increased or decrease compared to the fresh rock usually as a result of iron leaching or deposition. The colour and strength of the original rock substance is no longer recognisable.

Moderately weathered2 MW Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that staining extends throughout the whole of the rock

substance and the original colour of the fresh rock is no longer recognisable.

Slightly weathered SW Rock substance affected by weathering to the extent that partial staining or discolouration of the rock

substance usually by limonite has taken place. The colour and texture of the fresh rock is recognisable.

Fresh FR Rock substance unaffected by weathering Notes:

1 Rs and EW material is described using soil descriptive terms. 2. The term “Distinctly Weathered” (DW) may be used to cover the range of substance weathering between EW and SW Rock Strength Rock strength is defined by the Point Load Strength Index (Is 50) and refers to the strength of the rock substance in the direction normal to the loading. The test procedure is described by the International Society of Rock Mechanics.

Term Is (50) MPa Field Guide Symbol

Very low >0.03 ≤0.1 May be crumbled in the hand. Sandstone is ‘sugary’ and friable. VL

Low >0.1 ≤0.3 A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter may be broken by hand and easily scored with a knife. Sharp edges of core may be friable and break during handling. L

Medium >0.3 ≤1.0 A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter can be broken by hand with considerable difficulty. Readily scored with a knife. M

High >1 ≤3 A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter cannot be broken by unaided hands, can be slightly scratched or scored with a knife. H

Very high >3 ≤10 A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter may be broken readily with hand held hammer. Cannot be scratched with pen knife. VH

Extremely high >10 A piece of core 150mm long x 50mm diameter is difficult to break with hand held hammer.

Rings when struck with a hammer. EH


ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Degree of Fracturing This classification applies to diamond drill cores and refers to the spacing of all types of natural fractures along which the core is discontinuous. These include bedding plane partings, joints and other rock defects, but exclude fractures such as drilling breaks (DB) or handling breaks (HB).

Term Description

Fragmented The core is comprised primarily of fragments of length less than 20 mm, and mostly of width less than core diameter.

Highly fractured Core lengths are generally less than 20 mm to 40 mm with occasional fragments.

Fractured Core lengths are mainly 30 mm to 100 mm with occasional shorter and longer sections.

Slightly fractured Core lengths are generally 300 mm to 1000 mm, with occasional longer sections and sections of 100 mm to 300 mm.

Unbroken The core does not contain any fractures.

Rock Core Recovery

TCR = Total Core Recovery SCR = Solid Core Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Designation

%100×=run core of Length

recovered core of Length %100×

∑=

run core of Lengthrecovered core lcylindrica of Length %100×

>∑=

run core of Lengthlong mm 100 core of lengths Axial

Rock Strength Tests

Point load strength Index (Is50) - axial test (MPa)

Point load strength Index (Is50) - diametral test (MPa)

Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) (MPa)

Defect Type Abbreviations and Descriptions

Defect Type (with inclination given) Planarity Roughness

BP FL CL JT FC

SZ/SS CZ/CS DZ/DS

FZ IS

VN CO HB DB

Bedding plane parting Foliation Cleavage Joint Fracture Sheared zone/ seam (Fault) Crushed zone/ seam Decomposed zone/ seam Fractured Zone Infilled seam Vein Contact Handling break Drilling break

Pl Cu Un St Ir Dis

Planar Curved Undulating Stepped Irregular Discontinuous

Pol Sl Sm Ro VR

Polished Slickensided Smooth Rough Very rough

Thickness Coating or Filling

Zone Seam Plane

> 100 mm > 2 mm < 100 mm < 2 mm

Cn Sn Ct Vnr Fe X Qz MU

Clean Stain Coating Veneer Iron Oxide Carbonaceous Quartzite Unidentified mineral

Inclination

Inclination of defect is measured from perpendicular to and down the core axis. Direction of defect is measured clockwise (looking down core) from magnetic north.


ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling or excavation to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock. Disturbed samples taken during drilling or excavation provide information on colour, type, inclusions and, depending upon the degree of disturbance, some information on strength and structure. Undisturbed samples may be taken by pushing a thin-walled sampling tube, e.g. U50 (50 mm internal diameter thin walled tube), into soils and withdrawing a soil sample in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield information on structure and strength and are necessary for laboratory determination of shear strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally effective only in cohesive soils. Other sampling methods may be used. Details of the type and method of sampling are given in the report. Drilling / Excavation Methods The following is a brief summary of drilling and excavation methods currently adopted by the Company and some comments on their use and application. Hand Excavation - in some situations, excavation using hand tools, such as mattock and spade, may be required due to limited site access or shallow soil profiles. Hand Auger - the hole is advanced by pushing and rotating either a sand or clay auger, generally 75-100 mm in diameter, into the ground. The penetration depth is usually limited to the length of the auger pole; however extender pieces can be added to lengthen this. Test Pits - these are excavated with a backhoe or a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the in-situ soils and, if it is safe to descend into the pit, collection of bulk disturbed samples. The depth of penetration is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to 6 m for an excavator. A potential disadvantage is the disturbance caused by the excavation. Large Diameter Auger (e.g. Pengo) - the hole is advanced by a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in diameter. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally of not more than 0.5 m) and are disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight augers, and is usually supplemented by occasional undisturbed tube sampling. Continuous Sample Drilling (Push Tube) - the hole is advanced by pushing a 50 - 100 mm diameter socket into the ground and withdrawing it at intervals to extrude the sample. This is the most reliable method of drilling in soils, since moisture content is unchanged and soil structure, strength etc. is only marginally affected. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers - the hole is advanced using 90 - 115 mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface or, or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are very disturbed and may be contaminated. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively lower reliability, due to remoulding, contamination or softening of samples by ground water.

Non-core Rotary Drilling - the hole is advanced by a rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together with some information from ‘feel’ and rate of penetration. Rotary Mud Drilling - similar to rotary drilling, but using drilling mud as a circulating fluid. The mud tends to mask the cuttings and reliable identification is again only possible from separate intact sampling (eg. from SPT). Continuous Core Drilling - a continuous core sample is obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel of usually 50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is achieved (not always possible in very weak or fractured rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method of investigation. In-situ Testing and Interpretation Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as Dutch Cone) described in this report has been carried out using an electrical friction cone penetrometer. The test is described in AS 1289.6.5.1-1999 (R2013). In the test, a 35 mm diameter rod with a cone tipped end is pushed continuously into the soil, the reaction being provided by a specially designed truck or rig which is fitted with an hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made of the end bearing resistance on the cone and the friction resistance on a separate 130 mm long sleeve, immediately behind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly are connected by electrical wires passing through the push rod centre to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted on the control truck. As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20 mm per second) the information is output on continuous chart recorders. The plotted results given in this report have been traced from the original records. The information provided on the charts comprises:

(i) Cone resistance (qc) - the actual end bearing force divided by the cross sectional area of the cone, expressed in MPa.

(ii) Sleeve friction (qf) - the frictional force of the sleeve divided by the surface area, expressed in kPa.

(iii) Friction ratio - the ratio of sleeve friction to cone resistance, expressed in percent.

There are two scales available for measurement of cone resistance. The lower (A) scale (0 - 5 MPa) is used in very soft soils where increased sensitivity is required and is shown in the graphs as a dotted line. The main (B) scale (0 - 50 MPa) is less sensitive and is shown as a full line. The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistance will vary with the type of soil encountered, with higher relative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1 % - 2 % are commonly encountered in sands and very soft clays rising to 4 % - 10 % in stiff clays. In sands, the relationship between cone resistance and SPT value is commonly in the range:

qc (MPa) = (0.4 to 0.6) N (blows/300 mm) In clays, the relationship between undrained shear strength and cone resistance is commonly in the range:

qc = (12 to 18) Cu


ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

Interpretation of CPT values can also be made to allow estimation of modulus or compressibility values to allow calculation of foundation settlements. Inferred stratification as shown on the attached reports is assessed from the cone and friction traces and from experience and information from nearby boreholes etc. This information is presented for general guidance, but must be regarded as being to some extent interpretive. The test method provides a continuous profile of engineering properties, and where precise information on soil classification is required, direct drilling and sampling may be preferable.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) Standard penetration tests are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but occasionally also in cohesive soils as a means of determining density or strength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in AS 1289.6.3.1-2004. The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50 mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150 mm penetration depth increments and the ‘N’ value is taken as the number of blows for the last two 150 mm depth increments (300 mm total penetration). In dense sands, very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be practicable and the test is discontinued. The test results are reported in the following form:

(i) Where full 450 mm penetration is obtained with successive blow counts for each 150 mm of say 4, 6 and 7 blows:

as 4, 6, 7 N = 13

(ii) Where the test is discontinued, short of full penetration,

say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and 30 blows for the next 40mm

as 15, 30/40 mm. The results of the tests can be related empirically to the engineering properties of the soil. Occasionally, the test method is used to obtain samples in 50 mm diameter thin walled sample tubes in clays. In such circumstances, the test results are shown on the borehole logs in brackets. Dynamic Cone (Hand) Penetrometers Hand penetrometer tests are carried out by driving a rod into the ground with a falling weight hammer and measuring the blows for successive 150mm increments of penetration. Normally, there is a depth limitation of 1.2m but this may be extended in certain conditions by the use of extension rods. Two relatively similar tests are used. Perth sand penetrometer (PSP) - a 16 mm diameter flat ended rod is driven with a 9 kg hammer, dropping 600 mm. The test, described in AS 1289.6.3.3-1997 (R2013), was developed for testing the density of sands (originating in Perth) and is mainly used in granular soils and filling. Cone penetrometer (DCP) - sometimes known as the Scala Penetrometer, a 16 mm rod with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven with a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm. The test, described in AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 (R2013), was developed initially for pavement sub-grade investigations, with correlations of the test results with California Bearing Ratio published by various Road Authorities. Pocket Penetrometers The pocket (hand) penetrometer (PP) is typically a light weight spring hand operated device with a stainless steel

loading piston, used to estimate unconfined compressive strength, qu, (UCS in kPa) of a fine grained soil in field conditions. In use, the free end of the piston is pressed into the soil at a uniform penetration rate until a line, engraved near the piston tip, reaches the soil surface level. The reading is taken from a gradation scale, which is attached to the piston via a built-in spring mechanism and calibrated to kilograms per square centimetre (kPa) UCS. The UCS measurements are used to evaluate consistency of the soil in the field moisture condition. The results may be used to assess the undrained shear strength, Cu, of fine grained soil using the approximate relationship:

qu = 2 x Cu.

It should be noted that accuracy of the results may be influenced by condition variations at selected test surfaces. Also, the readings obtained from the PP test are based on a small area of penetration and could give misleading results. They should not replace laboratory test results. The use of the results from this test is typically limited to an assessment of consistency of the soil in the field and not used directly for design of foundations. Test Pit / Borehole Logs Test pit / borehole log(s) presented herein are an engineering and / or geological interpretation of the subsurface conditions. Their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and methods of excavation / drilling. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or excavation / core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment but this is not always practicable, or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any case, the test pit / borehole logs represent only a very small sample of the total subsurface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should therefore take into account the spacing of test pits / boreholes, the frequency of sampling and the possibility of other than ‘straight line’ variation between the test pits / boreholes. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing is carried out in accordance with AS 1289 Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes. Details of the test procedure used are given on the individual report forms. Ground Water Where ground water levels are measured in boreholes, there are several potential problems:

• In low permeability soils, ground water although present, may enter the hole slowly, or perhaps not at all during the time it is left open.

• A localised perched water table may lead to an erroneous indication of the true water table.

• Water table levels will vary from time to time with seasons or recent prior weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report.

• The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any ground water inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the hole if water observations are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes, which are read at intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be interference from a perched water table.


ma

rte

ns

con

su

ltin

g e

ng

ine

ers

DRILLING / EXCAVATION METHOD HA Hand Auger RD Rotary Blade or Drag Bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm AD/V Auger Drilling with V-bit RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core – 51.9 mm AD/T Auger Drilling with TC-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core – 63.5 mm AS Auger Screwing RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core – 63.5 mm HSA Hollow Stem Auger CT Cable Tool Rig DT Diatube Coring S Excavated by Hand Spade PT Push Tube NDD Non-destructive digging BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe PC Percussion PQ Diamond Core - 83 mm JET Jetting E Tracked Hydraulic Excavator X Existing Excavation

SUPPORT Nil No support S Shotcrete RB Rock Bolt C Casing Sh Shoring SN Soil Nail WB Wash bore with Blade or Bailer WR Wash bore with Roller T Timbering

WATER

Water level at date shown Partial water loss Water inflow Complete water loss

GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED (NO) The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water, surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED (NX) The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open for a longer period.

PENETRATION / EXCAVATION RESISTANCE L Low resistance: Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used. M Medium resistance: Excavation possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used. H High resistance: Further penetration possible at slow rate & requires significant effort equipment. R Refusal/ Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without risk of damage/ unacceptable wear to digging implement / machine.

These assessments are subjective and dependent on many factors, including equipment power, weight, condition of excavation or drilling tools, and operator experience.

SAMPLING

D Small disturbed sample W Water Sample C Core sample

B Bulk disturbed sample G Gas Sample CONC Concrete Core

U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal undisturbed sample diameter in millimetres

TESTING

SPT 4,7,11 N=18

DCP

Notes:

RW

HW

HB 30/80mm

N=18

Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. ‘N’ = Recorded blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating

Dynamic Cone Penetration test to AS1289.6.3.2-1997. ‘n’ = Recorded blows per 150mm penetration

Penetration occurred under the rod weight only

Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only

Hammer double bouncing on anvil after 80 mm penetration

Where practical refusal occurs, report blows and penetration for that interval

CPT

CPTu

PP

FP

VS

PM

PID

WPT

Static cone penetration test

CPT with pore pressure (u) measurement

Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading (kPa)

Field permeability test over section noted

Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual value)

Pressuremeter test over section noted

Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm

Water pressure tests

SOIL DESCRIPTION ROCK DESCRIPTION

Density Consistency Moisture Strength Weathering VL Very loose VS Very soft D Dry VL Very low EW Extremely weathered L Loose S Soft M Moist L Low HW Highly weathered MD Medium dense F Firm W Wet M Medium MW Moderately weathered D Dense St Stiff Wp Plastic limit H High SW Slightly weathered VD Very dense VSt Very stiff Wl Liquid limit VH Very high FR Fresh H Hard EH Extremely high


preliminary geotechnical assessment: proposed childcare

Documents